# Ron Paul, pros/cons? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 9, 2012, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888 "2012-01-09T03:49:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/121 "2012-01-10T18:25:37Z")
Paul’s position on marriage would be like Candidate B saying that states should have the freedom to make up whatever laws on, say, gun ownership that the states may like, without any Federal interference. That kind of glosses over the fact that Candidate B voted for a bill that would forbid the Federal government from ever recognizing the legality of gun ownership. Yeah, except for that one teeny tiny itty bitty little fact that Candidate B wants the Federal government opposes gun ownership, he’s willing to let the states can do anything they want on gun ownership. On edit, I see that you have raised the same absurdity with Paul’s position on SSM as I was attempting to illustrate. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/122 "2012-01-10T18:25:40Z")
Because he’s a homophobic, hypocritical old fossil? What other answer is there? ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/123 "2012-01-10T18:29:34Z")
Does he really think that, though? Are the Federal-level attempted-limits on things like SSM only applicable to the CURRENT situation of things? If he were President, would he repeal all federal-level anti-SSM bills/laws and leave it purely to the states? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/124 "2012-01-10T18:34:17Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > What about right to privacy? Ron Paul has made it very clear that he does not believe there is such a thing as a “right to privacy” and that state governments have the right to regulate people’s sexual behavior using “local community standards as a guide.” [http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html](http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html) > [@](#): > > Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, **there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.** But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/125 "2012-01-10T18:34:25Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > How can he support a Federal-level marriage notion but at the same time say it’s a states issue? The only logical explanation for his actions is that his opposition to gay marriage trumps his commitment to the libretarian/state issue. His position on abortion is pretty similar: he says it’s a state issue but has introduced a bill that said life begins at conception and would have barred federal courts from hearing cases related to abortion laws. He also voted in favor of bans on “partial birth” abortions. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/126 "2012-01-10T18:35:32Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > If he were President, would he repeal all federal-level anti-SSM bills/laws and leave it purely to the states? The president can’t repeal laws. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/127 "2012-01-10T18:40:45Z")
So how would that work? If SSM laws are handled by the states, but with things like DOMA/WTP in effect? What does that even mean? (Thanks guys for the responses, this is really helpful for my understanding of how this stuff works. I constantly hear people being so pro-Paul but I want to understand why, or if it’s mass-duping/delusion/ignorance) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/128 "2012-01-10T19:29:17Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > So how would that work? If SSM laws are handled by the states, but with things like DOMA/WTP in effect? What does that even mean? There’s no easy answer to that. This is one of those areas where the state and federal governments are always squabbling over jurisdiction (or, sometimes, trying to push the whole thing off on the other). ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/129 "2012-01-10T19:36:55Z")
I guess I am just confused over what has what jurisdiction. It seems like SSM is a states issue (as it’s not endorsed any one way in the Constitution as far as I know). But… then… Agh this is seriously giving me a headache. I’m sincerely getting a migraine. I’ve been scouring the net for information and it seems so hazy and ill-defined. Apparently RP says he supports DOMA only for the clause that says one state shouldn’t have to recognize a SSM made in another state. The anti-hearing bills he supported try to keep certain functions confined to the state level, as they aren’t in the Constitution (amendment 10). To me, this sounds consistent, no? Support pro-state leglistation, put limits on Federal power to say one way or the other. Is this correct? Is marriage currently endorsed at the Federal level? Is it a states issue? Do we have the ability to legalize gay marriage at the Federal level? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/130 "2012-01-10T19:43:06Z")
Marriage is a state issue, with the exception that the Federal government has to make certain decisions on how to treat marriages for things like tax returns or government benefits. As it stands today, the Defense of Marriage Act states that the Federal government will not recognize a same sex marriage even if it was lawfully done in one of the few states that allows for that. Let’s be clear here: the idea that Paul and others have put forward that if one state legalized SSM, that other states would be bound to also recognize that marriage, is BS. It isn’t true. Remember when states used to have laws that prohibited mixed race marriages? Did those laws spill over into states that allowed for mixed race marriages? Of course not. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/131 "2012-01-10T19:45:58Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Do we have the ability to legalize gay marriage at the Federal level? Of course. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/132 "2012-01-10T19:52:00Z")
I think, though, from what I am reading elsewhere – Ron Paul said he defended DOMA precisely for that reason. He doesn’t want one state to be forced to acknowledge a SSM made in another state. Isn’t DOMA to be expected from a guy like RP? He doesn’t want the Feds recognizing marriage at all, period. Marriage only exists within the confines of the state. Isn’t that his position? Personally, I’d like to see SSM legalized everywhere, but I can’t defend why and I don’t know who has what power to do what. It seems like RP is a strict Constitutionalist who wants to keep Feds on a tight leash, bound by what’s in the Constitution, while everything else goes to the states. Why can’t marriage be put into the Constitution? Are there dangers to this sort of action? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/133 "2012-01-10T19:53:10Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > I think, though, from what I am reading elsewhere – Ron Paul said he defended DOMA precisely for that reason. He doesn’t want one state to be forced to acknowledge a SSM made in another state. Isn’t DOMA to be expected from a guy like RP? He doesn’t want the Feds recognizing marriage at all, period. Marriage only exists within the confines of the state. Isn’t that his position? DOMA is a federal law defining marriage. Paul says he doesn’t want the federal government to define marriage, but he supports DOMA and has tried to fend off challenges to it. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/134 "2012-01-10T19:57:45Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > The only logical explanation for his actions is that his opposition to gay marriage trumps his commitment to the libretarian/state issue. His position on abortion is pretty similar: he says it’s a state issue but has introduced a bill that said life begins at conception and would have barred federal courts from hearing cases related to abortion laws. He also voted in favor of bans on “partial birth” abortions. But at least he’s _consistent_. I mean, everyone talks about how _consistent_ Ron Paul is. So he must be. Interesting editorial [here](http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-01-09/Ron-Paul-Fed-economy/52473466/1) on Ron Paul’s 19th-century economic ideas. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/135 "2012-01-10T20:45:04Z")
So how is heterosexual marriage legal? Did all the states have to manually vote in favor of it first? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/136 "2012-01-10T21:00:47Z")
Well, the states voted long ago for laws relating to marriage. They’re already on the books. ---
**Author:** ![FixMyIgnorance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7feea3/32.png) [@FixMyIgnorance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FixMyIgnorance)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/137 "2012-01-10T21:06:20Z")
So if marriage is a states issue, isn’t this the only way to really do it? Get all the states to agree to gay marriage? What’s wrong with legalizing it Federally? ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/138 "2012-01-10T21:13:27Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > Can anyone please give good reasons why, say, his foreign policy is good/bad or if his economic views are reasonable? Others have commented on his economic views so I’ll pass on that. His foreign policy is for the Federal government to pull out of all relationships. Sure he wants international trade but that’s outside of Federal control. IMO we learned back in the 1930’s that isolationism doesn’t work. More recently is was largely US involvement that kept Communism from expanding more than it did. Paul would have had us sit out the First Gulf War and let Iraq do what it wanted and potentially gain control of most of the world’s oil supply. His rationale is that US Federal action led up to these events; e.g. FDR tried to contain the Japanese before WW II and Regan/Bush supported Hussein enough that he felt emboldened to invade Kuwait. Even if I agreed with that analysis (and I don’t) we can’t pretend that suddenly pulling out of world concerns would all of a sudden nullify _current_ US actions. My opinion is that world affairs would undoubtedly get worse at least in the short term if Paul had his way, which would lead to disaster. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Or wait a second… who was it that actually [voted against](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/mlk-day-fact-check/251037/) MLK Day? Was it Ron Paul or Lew Rockwell? Did Ron Paul even know that he voted against MLK Day? I believe this is somewhat disingenuous. Paul has probably voted against every bill declaring an official Federal holiday, no matter what the cause. His MO is to oppose anything that doesn’t deal directly with personal liberty and Federal holidays, even one for MLK, doesn’t fit that. The charge of racism in the old newsletters is a more serious matter. However I haven’t seen anything else from Paul that looks like racism and without further evidence I attach as much importance to it as Obama’s association with Rev. Wright: both were probably mistakes that don’t strongly reflect on the man. > [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > He supports DOMA: Federal level -\> Marriage: Man + Woman > [@Marley23](#): > > DOMA is a federal law defining marriage. Paul says he doesn’t want the federal government to define marriage, but he supports DOMA and has tried to fend off challenges to it. I think this is a mischaracterization of his position. He supports DOMA because he doesn’t want the Federal government to sanction any type of “marriage” and DOMA has, in one way of looking at it, as small a Federal footprint as possible. What he’d prefer is to do away with all Federal marriage guidelines instead of adding more. To quote his Wiki page: _“I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want”_. If you argue that this is a contorted dance I won’t disagree but I think Paul is trying to be consistent. > [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > So would you say Ron Paul isn’t REALLY a defender of civil liberties? It sounds like he just wants to push the power to oppress to the states instead of the government. I think Paul is making an honest attempt defend liberty as best he knows how, just like I think Obama is making an honest attempt to improve the US. I just disagree with how they go about it. My opinion of Paul is that he’s so locked into his view of personal liberty that he gets lost in the forest of pragmatism. His distaste for Federal power is so strong that it leads him to wrongful conclusions, like his opposition to the Fed and the Civil Rights Act (plus the items already discussed). In the 2008 election he crossed over into paranoia when he voiced his belief in a North American Union conspiracy by the Federal government. I think he’s trying to be honest and consistent but his axioms are different from mine. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/139 "2012-01-10T21:32:55Z")
> [@FixMyIgnorance](#): > > I guess I am just confused over what has what jurisdiction. It seems like SSM is a states issue (as it’s not endorsed any one way in the Constitution as far as I know). But… then… > > Agh this is seriously giving me a headache. I’m sincerely getting a migraine. I’ve been scouring the net for information and it seems so hazy and ill-defined. > > Apparently RP says he supports DOMA only for the clause that says one state shouldn’t have to recognize a SSM made in another state. The anti-hearing bills he supported try to keep certain functions confined to the state level, as they aren’t in the Constitution (amendment 10). To me, this sounds consistent, no? Support pro-state leglistation, put limits on Federal power to say one way or the other. > > Is this correct? > > Is marriage currently endorsed at the Federal level? Is it a states issue? Do we have the ability to legalize gay marriage at the Federal level? Marriage licenses are issued by states. The Federal Government recognizes heterosexual marriages performed in other countries but not a gay marriage performed in the nation’s capital. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Marriage is a state issue, with the exception that the Federal government has to make certain decisions on how to treat marriages for things like tax returns or government benefits. As it stands today, the Defense of Marriage Act states that the Federal government will not recognize a same sex marriage even if it was lawfully done in one of the few states that allows for that. > > Let’s be clear here: the idea that Paul and others have put forward that if one state legalized SSM, that other states would be bound to also recognize that marriage, is BS. It isn’t true. Remember when states used to have laws that prohibited mixed race marriages? Did those laws spill over into states that allowed for mixed race marriages? Of course not. I think a better analogy would be if a mixed race married couple would still be considered married in Jim Crow Texas. The constitutional answer was yes. I don’t see why a gay marriage doesn’t deserve as much respect as a mixed marriage. States can decline to recognize marriages that are against public policy. Incestuous or polygomist marriages are a couple of examples but its not exactly clear whether gay marriage is more like polygamy or more like myscegenation. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2012, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888/140 "2012-01-10T21:34:18Z")
> [@IntelliQ](#): > > The US is not policing the world. Another parroted generic phrase that ignores human rights, diplomatic allegiances, vested interests, economic stability, and yes - promoting peace through kicking arse of those who actively pursue killing other humans for sport, prejudices, barbaric religious practices, etc (the list is long). > Just take a brief 4 seconds to imagine if we had Paul as President during key times throughout history, say 1812, 1846, 1861, 1914, 1941, … > > To say “topple governments we _dislike_” insinuates intervention is born of whimsy (or trending mood) - is a generic assertion with no merit. Applying “like or dislike” to incredibly complex positions is juvenile (then again, Paul does have the support of most young minds fresh out of high school). 1812- our sovereignty was being challenged. Paul would have acted. 1861- he would have recognized the right of secession and slavery would have ended without war. The country would’ve been split, but who knows if that would have turned out to be a bad thing. 1914- Paul wouldn’t have backed the British who were starving Germany illegally with a blockade. He also wouldn’t have instigated war with Germany as Wilson did. Germany would have held more bargaining power in the treaty making process. Germany isn’t forced to inflate its currency to pay reparations, Hitler doesn’t rise to power, WWII is avoided. 1941- We were attacked. Paul would have sought a declaration of war, as Roosevelt did. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ron-paul-pros-cons/608888.md?page=8)